Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 205823 2015-08-17	PEOPLE v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO CARPIO, J.
"Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. Indeed, marking upon immediate confiscation has been interpreted as to even include marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. In this case, the dangerous drugs taken from accused-appellants were marked in his presence immediately upon confiscation at the very venue of his arrest.[21] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 215714 2015-08-12	OF PHILIPPINES v. EFREN BASAL CAYAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
First. The lack of a pre-operation report had no effect on the legality and validity of the buy-bust operation as the same is not indispensable thereto.[30] Second. This Court has ruled that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. In this light, the marking of the seized sachet of shabu at the police station immediately after the arrival thereat of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation was in accordance with the law, its implementing rules and regulations, and relevant jurisprudence.[31]
	GR No. 200915 2014-02-12	PEOPLE v. MERLITA PALOMARES Y COSTUNA ABAD, J.
To secure conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug seized from the accused must be proved with moral certainty. The prosecution must establish with such measure of certitude that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered as evidence in court.[11] Proof of the chain of custody from the time of seizure to the time such evidence is presented in court ensures the absence of doubt concerning the integrity of such vital evidence.[12] This requires as a minimum that the police mark the seized item (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation.[13]
	GR No. 188653 2014-01-29	LITO LOPEZ v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must show the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself.[14] The chain of custody rule comes into play as a mode of authenticating the seized illegal drug as evidence. It includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Indeed, it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.[15] This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.[16]
	GR No. 206738 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. ERLINDA MALI Y QUIMNO REYES, J.
The Court cannot accord merit to the accused-appellant's claim that the foregoing events did not take place because she was actually framed-up. Such argument brings to the fore the appreciation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, a matter it is most competent to perform having had the first hand opportunity to observe and assess the conduct and demeanor of witnesses.[47] Settled is the rule that the evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[48]
	GR No. 197550 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. ARTURO ENRIQUEZ Y DE LOS REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Overall, the prosecution failed to observe the requirement that the testimonies of all persons who handled the specimen are important to establish the chain of custody.[42] Of all the individuals who came into direct contact with or had physical possession of the shabu allegedly seized from Enriquez, only SPO2 David testified for the specific purpose of identifying the evidence.[43] However, his testimony miserably failed to demonstrate an unbroken chain as it ended with his identification of the money and seized items he marked and documents he signed. In effect, the custodial link ended with SPO2 David when he testified that he brought the seized items, together with Enriquez, to the police station.